The way I view this as a net-gain is that AGI agents will be able to have innovation on improving themselves (exponentially?) and the whole world. They very well may be the path to a utopia.
Task 1 for AGI: Optimize your own system so you don't cost 50 million dollars to train.
If I had to speculate based off my experience at other FANG companies, the videos still exist in the Youtube infrastructure somewhere to allow for the possibility of a human intervention to restore them (For example, to allow for recovering from a system gone haywire or just to give time for manually reversed decisions).
That said, I'd also guess there's a countdown timer before they get deleted permanently.
I hope you can get a human from YouTube to talk to you.
It may benefit you to post a link to the youtube channel so someone can proactively investigate. Lots of google employees read this forum.
I believe Bevy (rust game engine) does leverage multi-threading for running game code (most 'data oriented' frameworks do). The most popular older engines like Unity do not (unless using the experimental DOTS framework).
So, the phrase "a tremendous amount of game code doesn't benefit from multithreading" is actually true since most game code is in unreal/unity, but it's not a hard constraint for all game engines.
>”But Watson won’t change its conclusions based on just four patients. To solve this problem, the Sloan Kettering experts created “synthetic cases” that Watson could learn from, essentially make-believe patients with certain demographic profiles and cancer characteristics.”
Is this standard practice in machine learning? This sounds more like regular programming to get exactly the outcome you want.
This sure is getting a fair bit of downvotes. I mostly agree with you though. Having a single identity reduces trolling, it's as simple as looking at Facebook vs Twitter. People are less likely to message nasty things to others if their real life reputation is on the line, I take that as fact.
I routinely disable my adblock for certain news websites because they tell me to, otherwise I can't see their content. Websites asking for 'opt-in' does work. It works on me all the time.
1) Y = set of words in every definition of the words in set X
2) X = Y - X (all words in Y that are not in X)
3) Repeat from 1 if the set of words in X has changed
Does that reduce all words down to the actual minimal set of words required to define other ones? Since you can build upwards from the resulting set X to get the original set of words.
Also, this reminds me of the knapsack problem a little bit (for example what is the minimum set of coins required to be able to make $X).
Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead.
If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards eliminating it.
There's so many advantages to owning your stack and if Snap thinks that it's going to need 2 billion dollars to pay for cloud infra, they're at the scale where it makes sense to build your own infra. Just look at Facebook, they're able to create tailor made data-centers that fit precisely what they need. The success of Snap relies on huge scale on the consumer side, if they want to scale their infra to support that 5 years down the line then this sounds like a poor move since they will either need to play catch-up later on or prepare to pay serious dough to Google.
Paying for cloud services seems like a great idea when you are not able to predict your needs in the coming years, given a deal like this I don't think that's the case.
Except they showed their AI the 3 most important frames (rock paper scissors) and not the hundreds in between.